Central Jersey Emergent Cohort: #2
December 17, 2004
The second Emergent Cohort was last night. We had a great turn out, probably close to 30 people. In addition to those who were there last time, Will Samson joined us from PA, Bill Arnold from NJ and Brian Ross and Jarred Garber from Koinos Church in Reading, PA (they’re pictured down on the right). A good mix of those who are actually “out there” doing ministry and a good group from the seminary, including Zirschky, Jake Myers and a guy I keep liking more and more each time I hang out with him, Matt Milliner.
We discussed the two articles about Emergent, and the questions from the evening revolved around whether Emergent was a conversation, a movement, an organization, a future denomination?? The Christianity Today article did a good job, I think, of expressing and getting out the “perception” many have of Emergent - that it’s simply an aesthetics movement. It’s simply doing the candles and the coffee (this was one of my very first blog posts ever, go there to read my idea of 1)aesthetically postmodern churches, 2)methodologically postmodern churches and 3)theologically postmodern churches). And that is what some churches want. They go to the Emergent Convention, and sit in one of Dan Kimball’s great Critical Concerns Course, with the sole hope of getting the “how-to-do-an-Emergent-worship-service” handout and then they’re off on becoming an “emerging church.”
From what I understand - that is not the hearts of those who are on the Emergent Coordinating Team (or Fellowship?), of which Tony Jones is a part of. Yet, it seems to be that this is the emphasis that is played up to the general public. Maybe it’s because of all the conservative evangelicals who are coming to the conventions and really do just want to get the ideas and run. Maybe it’s because of the tight relationships (that are beginning to be called into question) between Emergent and Zondervan, or even Youth Specialties. Brian Ross expressed his desire to be inclusive. And I believe, if Emergent is going to be inclusive, we have to be okay, I think, with those who want to be “Emergent” and are just interested in the aesthetics of their worship space. Maybe to them, that’s what it means to be Emergent. And I must confess, I think that I got more into the Emergent scene through the alt.worship aspect of it - and I don’t think that’s bad. However, I think that the deeper I got into it, the more conversations I had with people at the conventions, etc., I came to realize that was definitely not what it was all about - that it was more than that, that it was not just about aesthetics of our worship - but it was about our methodologies - but more so (and this is where the focus should be I think) - it’s about our theology. So, can Emergent be open enough to allow for different varieties of “emergence” to exist within?
Zirschky brought up the question of whether or not Emergent really has a future, if it is going to exist with fuzzy boundaries, or is it simply going to flounder. I guess I want fuzzy boundaries. I think if Emergent does sit down and come up with some solid boundaries, that is going against the very idea to be open to all new things, etc. If Emergent begins to build boundaries, to draw up lines…I think that’s when we’ve gone against what Emergent began as.
That’s enough for now…thoughts?
Btw, Jake has some great thoughts from last night’s cohort over at Theofragen’s post “I have a vision.” I totally agree with one of his comments here:
“I have a vision in which an Emergent Baptist can bump into an Emergent Roman Catholic at some coffee shop and experience a sense of solidarity and mutual appreciation for each other’s differences.”
In fact, I almost wrote the very same thing in my post above. Why does Emergent have to split the denominations? Just like some would say you could have an evangelical Baptist, Catholic or Episcopal, why does aligning oneself with the set of ideals and goals and dreams of Emergent have to take you outside of your denomination? Sure, sometimes they may rub against each other, and rub the wrong way…but that is where the dirty theological work is tested, played out and where the good shit happens.
Tags: Emergent, emerging-church, Theology
Posted in Emergent
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
December 17th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
yo..good thoughts here..just letting you know that MP3’s of the emergent conversation held here in Atlanta with Walter brueggemann are now online at Emergent Village…it might interesting to compare some of the questions raised in the panel discussion with some of our thoughts about the future of Emergent…
peace
mark
December 17th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
everything you’re talking about here interesting to me, especially how inclusivity of those currently only interested in aesthetics could potentially lead to a greater implementation of some of the theological concept y’all are talking about, but that’s not what I want to comment on because it was hard for me to read the post thoroughly as I couldn’t get the picture out of my head:
a bunch of men sitting around a table smoking cigars and drinking beer with nary a woman in sight.
Now I like beer, I like men discussing theology and I couldn’t care less about whether or not you want to smoke cigars, but I don’t think the impression of a boys’ club is what emergent, as I understand it, is trying to do, and it certainly doesn’t jive with the affirmation I have experienced on a personal level from the men who I know who are in the picture (disregarding Andrew’s quip during CH101 about girls not being theologians!).
Now maybe there were 30 women there and they just aren’t in the picture. Maybe there were 30 women who really wanted to come but all had pressing other engagements. Maybe a lot of things, but images play a powerful role, and the picture I was just given took the church back a long way.
peace, brothers and sisters,
andrea
December 17th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
Andrea,
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Adam…were there any women there? Or any non-white people?
I’m just curious how you can have a serious conversation about being inclusisve…or about being emergent…..with such an all-white-boys-club.
Just curious.
Jennifer
December 17th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
I can witness to women being there… I was, and so were some other women, there were two tables going (not separated by gender though), but I do think that as women we have a responsibility to start showing up to discuss theological and ecclesial issues if we want to claim the voice that we do have.
December 17th, 2004 at 2:42 pm
There were non-whites too. :)
December 17th, 2004 at 2:49 pm
Katie,
Thanks for filling that detail in!
December 17th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Andrea, I know…and this is something that has been critiqued before. But, as you said, there are things that one image can’t tell you:
**There were more females invited (I believe you received an invite actually…)
**There were other women present, including Danielle Shroyer from Princeton Community Church (who will be one of the presenters at the Emergent Convention) - the picture just showed one of the tables
There are, in fact, some people who say they’re “Emergent” who come from the denominational backgrounds that still keep women in the background, and I think that’s sad (I wrote about that here). I think that is lame. I believe women have an incredible voice that needs to be heard. And it is my hope that more women WOULD come to the Emergent Cohort here in Jersey. And maybe we just need to do a better job of making sure that happens.
I hope that answers some of those questions. Andrea, it’s a valid concern, but effort was put out by Tony Jones to make sure we were inviting women to be there as well SIMPLY because we don’t want this to be a boy’s club. Not at all…
December 17th, 2004 at 3:30 pm
Thoughts:
So, who is Emergent? Obviously there are some differing views of what Emergent is. Are those who see Emergent as a change in method and look (Christianity Today article) the representatives of Emergent? Are those who see Emergent primarily as a theological move the representatives of Emergent? Are the ones with the greater numbers the representatives?
I think perhaps the C-Today article was right on with what Emergent is. However, unfortunately that isnt what many people want it to be (including myself).
Has Emergent been hijacked by method pushers? Has the theology (the heart of Emergent to some) been thrown out and lost to the majority who are mainstream “Emergers”?
I think perhaps some of this has to do with the problem with movements. As a movement Emergent may be taken captive by the majority - as a conversation all are more included.
But what does the conversation lead to if not a movement?
Sorry for my possibly incoherent ramblings…
December 17th, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Well said A.A… Theology may be “the heart of Emergent”, but it needs to be the head.
December 17th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
Adam, good thoughts. You seem particularly adept at synthesizing information. I echo the comments regarding women at the cohort. I always appreciate hearing Katie’s insightful observations. At PTS many women have a strong voice that carries a great deal of weight. I invited several of my female friends who I think might be interested in Emergent and, for whatever reason, they did not come. In all fairness, I would feel uncomfortable coming to a mostly-women’s meeting in which they were all sitting around painting each other’s fingernails. (Pardon the stereotype, it is intended to make a point). Given the atmosphere (a bar), the aroma (cigar smoke) and the beverage of choice (beer), which are all stereotypically “guy things”, perhaps we should seriously reconsider where we meet. If Emergent is going to be a ‘no girls allowed’ club (either intentionally or accidentally) I’m not interested–I have that in my denomination back home!
December 17th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
hi adam,
how is princeton treating you?
i would have liked to have been there with you all having an ale and shooting the theological and emergent breeze… ! and also i could have added some *diversity* to the group, as unfortunately, i still tend to kill many emergent birds with one stone ;-)
from karen, apostleschurch.org
(in the great nation of cascadia)
December 17th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
I’m a woman, I was there and I happen to like beer! :)
December 17th, 2004 at 10:29 pm
If only I wasn’t stuck here in So Cal.
I’d love to come.
I like beer too. And I’m a man.
December 18th, 2004 at 12:31 am
I’m a man and I like that girl who likes beer. I liked the smell of cigar smoke in the air, too, although it probably would have made me sick to actually smoke one!
I understand your desire to safeguard some fuzzy boundaries, but I question whether people should really be able to call themselves emergent purely for aesthetic reasons. Now, I’m actually interested in the subject of aesthetics. If we’re talking about having a different mindset about the theories behind aesthetics, then you have my interest. If we’re just talking about the candles and incense thing, then I have trouble agreeing with you. That, in my mind, does nothing to differentiate us from mega-churchland, which I’m sure will incorporate a lot of that soon enough if they haven’t already.
I wonder if we can be inclusive without approving of some things. You know what I mean. We can show love and appreciation for some characteristics of a Fundamentalist community and yet repudiate their sexism or dogmatism or whatever. In fact, Emergent could be defined by values that cut across denominational lines. And they don’t have to be negative values either.
December 18th, 2004 at 12:32 am
P.S. I like your new banner.
December 18th, 2004 at 2:34 am
“There were more females invited”
Jake made the point well about the choice of venue that would inhibit female participation, but if you also read what Rachelle wrote about the barriers to being a woman in ministry, there’s more to it than just venue.
Often women can’t just take off and hang out at a bar like guys can, so it’s more than just inviting them and then shrugging your shoulders when they don’t show up.
December 18th, 2004 at 1:27 pm
I’ve been out of touch travelling home for Christmas, but thank you all for your reasoned responses. As I mentioned, I have felt very affirmed at Princeton and specifically by people I know who are involved in Emergent.
By the way, as for venue issues, I’m not sure that the venue is inherently off-putting to women (it’s not to me), but that is worth considering (maybe a coffee shop option would be more gender neutral?).
thanks, all,
andrea
December 18th, 2004 at 11:55 pm
I will point out that there were several women at the gathering, at least four that I can remember. However, 3 of the 4 ended up at the other table because they came late, and the fourth was sitting out of view of the camera.
December 19th, 2004 at 2:10 am
And of course the camera was nailed to the wall and weighed 3,000 lb so it couldn’t be moved… pointing it at the other table was, naturally, out of the question. I’ve seen those new “digital” cameras and man, they are monsters. Who would want to try and point one in any direction other than its natural line of sight?
;)
December 19th, 2004 at 4:20 am
Seeing there’s some people talking about the uniformity of the group pictured, I’m also curious about what sort of people fly to conferences and then go to bars to drink beer, smoke fat cigars etc etc. It takes a certain amount of money and economic status to do these things. For me, the photo reinforces my own supicions that much of the emergent talk is driven by white, middle class, educated males - to be summarised as those who are privileged to have the wind at their backs (like me). Are we the best people to be leading emergent talk, especially when so much of the emergent discourse is supposedly “voices from the margins”. Too often I think the overly simplistic modern/postmodern dichotomy is actually the younger educated white middle class venting some anger and distancing themselves from the older educated white middle class.
Obviously I’m aware that it’s only ONE photo Adam and it’s unfair to read all this into ONE photo. I’m not having a go at this specific conference/cohort or the photo. It’s based on a sense I’ve had of the general tone of a lot of the “emergent” discourse.
December 19th, 2004 at 4:28 am
I forgot to add that sitting around to discuss two published articles on the emerging church also carries huge presuppositions about those who have the wind at their backs at this sort of cohort. What sort of people care about the questions of whether Emergent is a conversation, a movement, an organization, a future denomination? I don’t think Gutierrez, Boff, Sobrino or Cone would care much about this or whether liberation theology was a conversation, a movement, an organisation or a denomination…Is it a bit like discussing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin??
December 20th, 2004 at 9:35 am
Most interesting. I just read a an applicable quote from an unknown source, but tis true none the less.
“Today’s radicals are tomorrows Pharisees”
December 20th, 2004 at 9:52 am
I’m glad my fundamentalist church is located in an economically depressed area and reaches out to meet people’s physical and spiritual needs instead of sitting around in posh bars yakking about stuff.
…Just kidding (about the yakking part; the church part is true)–I‚Äôm interested to know what ya‚Äôll talked about. What are your hopes for the direction of the emergent church? What aspects of the CT and CC articles did you like; were there some places where they missed it?
December 20th, 2004 at 1:29 pm
Everything has to start somewhere and there are a lot of different kinds of margins in this world.
December 20th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
One primary reason for choosing the bar pictured above, I assume, is that Thursdays are $2 pint night. Hardly posh.
There’s no doubt that the emergent conversation is heavily gendered and racialized and reflects middle-class concerns. This is problematic and should be addressed. However, this in and of itself doesn’t serve as an appropriate basis to delegitimize or dismiss the emergent conversation. The sad fact is that almost every discourse and institution in our society is gendered and racialized, and anyone who is going to dismiss emergent on these terms presumably owes it to us to extract him- or herself from the majority of the institutions that she or he lives in.
My fear is that people would use the white, middle-class, educated male accusation as a shortcut dismissal instead of actually looking at the content of the emergent conversation and critiquing that. One reason I’m still a sometimes reluctant, half-participant in the emergent conversation is that it opens up possibilities for critique and reform of ecclesial structures that are heavily class, sex, race, and nationally biased.
If the conversation remains at the level of “what is emergent” or stays focused on aesthetic issues or hashes through irrelevant doctrinal matters, then fair enough, it is superficial and shallow. If the conversation takes seriously issues of class, sex, race, and national inequalities and generates concrete proposals to resist these inequalities, then I’m in. If the conversation goes that latter way, it will generate a form of diversity that will be far more interesting than a multi-cultural conversation about inconsequential matters.
December 20th, 2004 at 3:55 pm
The “posh bar” comment was a joke (playing off Andrew’s comments two posts above).
How do you determine what doctrinal matters are relevant or irrelevant? What makes doctrine (Scripture teaching) related to class, sex, race, and national inequalities the primary doctrine(s) for discussion? Aren’t more traditional churches already talking/dealing with these issues; what makes the emergent conversation distinctive?
I’m in a different subculture (so excuse me of some of my questions sound ignorant). I am, however, interested learning more about how people like yourselves are interfacing Christianity and post-modernity.
December 20th, 2004 at 9:04 pm
bcollins, sorry for not getting the joke. What makes a doctrinal matter relevant? The question for me is always this: what difference does it make?
What makes the makes inequalities important? I’m just saying that if we’re going to knock white middle-class males, we should knock (or not knock) them on the basis as to how they’re handling their historical position of privilege and power, not in relation to the mere fact that they are white, middle-class and male, a fact that has no moral significance in and of itself.
December 21st, 2004 at 9:41 am
90% of pastors in the U.S. are men. That’s right, 9 out of 10. And that goes for evangelical (slightly higher) and mainline (slightly lower). So it’s a little disingenuous to be picked on for only having four or five women in a group of 25 pastor-types. Emergent is purposefully battling the long-standing trend in Christianity that marginalizes women. The bar/cigar/beer critique is possibly valid, but it doesn’t seem to be coming from women who are part of the group, or who are invited but not coming.
And good Lord, we’ve had two meetings. The first was a get-to-know-ya, and the second what, basically, What the Hell is Emergent? We used the articles as a conversation piece. From the verve in this group, I have a feeling that we will very quickly move to more substantive theological-praxis issues.
December 21st, 2004 at 12:16 pm
Steve, I agree with your second paragraph‚Äîthough I don‚Äôt typically think in terms of my privilege and power. My thoughts run more along the lines of Christ‚Äôs redemptive purpose–if Jesus was crucified to ransom ‚Äúpeople for God from every tribe and language and people and nation‚Äù (Rev. 5:9), then I should rejoice in reaching out to people from every tribe, language, people, and nation because in doing so I‚Äôm working with my Savior to further His purposes.
I’m not as comfortable with pragmatic evaluation for the relevance of doctrine. Certainly, not all discussions can discuss all doctrines. So if you’re simply saying that some doctrines are more relevant to the discussion (though not necessarily more or less important), I’m with you. Yet even so, doctrines that don’t seem to have immediate relevance (doctrines for which the question “what difference does it make” isn’t immediately answerable) may have relevant implications.
Wilberforce makes the incisive comment about his own day, “The fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines insensibly gained strength. Thus the peculiar doctrines went more and more out of sight, and as might naturally have been expected, the moral system itself also began to wither and decay, being robbed of that which should have supplied it with life and nourishment.”
December 22nd, 2004 at 2:56 am
As a hispanic male who sat at the “other table” with Belinda on my left, Danielle on my right, and a confused transgedered pastor from Mosaic Manhattan across the table from me, I would say we were a pretty diverse bunch…But what do I know?
Seriously, folks- I haven’t exactly seen any Diversity-In-Leadership awards being handed at many religious institutions lately. Emergent is one of the only entities that is actually trying to do something about it. The Emerging Women Leadership Initiative, led by Heather Kirk-Davidoff and Holly Rankin Zaher is an example of that. Also, If you look at the people who are on the Emergent Coordinating Group, you will see that 25% are women. http://www.emergentvillage.com. I also see an African American and a hispanic in there.
Besides, judging from past pictures on Adam’s blog, he seems to be quite the fan of women! But maybe that’s a whole different story….
Camilo Ruan
December 27th, 2004 at 10:35 am
Hey Adam,
My name is Dave Fleming. I recently published a book with eys, and wanted to comment on your cohort’s conversation about the emergent world.
Your group’s comments are very similar to the conversations a group of emergent friends and I have on a regular basis. I call it the “trailor” syndrome. I live in Tucson, AZ and there are a heck of a lot of mobile home trailers out here. The manufacturers of trailers do all sorts of things to the outside of the house to make it look like it’s not a well…. trailer. But damn if you can’t see through the attempt at changing the look of a trailer. It just looks like a trailer. There are adobe trailers, there are colonial trailers, there are contemporary trailers (although i’m not sure I’ve seen a postmodern trailer yet) :)
Seems to me that evangelical churches are doing a similar thing right now. They are using emergent aesthetics, if you will, to change the siding of the trailer. But damn if the church still looks like an evangelical church. It’s still a trailer. This is because, as you point out, no real work is being done at the theological, philosophical and social levels to reform the community. So what you get is a trailer–albeit a hip and cooler version.
Working with emergent ys gave me a similar feeling. I really like the people at both zondervan and emergent. I feel them trying to discern how far they should really go with all this. Should they appeal to the trailer group of churches or should they really present books and projects that aim at re-formation. It’s not an easy question to answer. I for one have made my choice. I’m a re-former. Yet, reformation has to take place in a number of ways. So, perhaps your right, we need to welcome those who only want aesthetic changes. However, the real work that needs to be done is at the social and theological levels. I’m just not sure most evangelical leaders are up for that.
peace,
Dave
January 3rd, 2005 at 4:08 pm
sorry i missed the last one! got to love it when your excuse is having your wife and one kid throwing up all over you! anyway, these posts are the brilliance and the sickness of emergent. there is beauty in the conversation that takes place. there is darkness in the unstructuredness (not a word i know but anyone can wordsmith these days!). there is hope in the emergence of emergent. there is dispair in the lack of funding! emergent fits perfectly into the either/or, both/and mentality, and yet it may be harnessed by the neither/nor, or the one/or the other. not sure it will ever get away from the modernistic world that invades our minds and souls and hearts. but what do i know, i’m a youth pastor…
by the way, camilo was there and he is hispanic! and some of you guys are from other states. i say diversity was present. plus there was a girl in one of the pictures. unless some guy has some really pretty hands!
January 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Dave F,
Great comments and insight. I’m very interested in how emergent can break away from the notion that it’s just warmed over evangelical theology (as an Episcopalian I’m already bored with in-house wrangling). The trailer analogy is great. I’ve actually seen your book referenced and was prompted by your post to check it out - it looks excellent. I just ordered it and plan on blogging a bit about what I think as I read it.
Since you quote Senge in your pdf sample - I read Senge’s Fifth Discipline way back in the early 90s when it came out and of all the business leadership books that one still stands out head, shoulders, torso and legs over the rest, even more than a decade later. Unfortunately adoption of many of the principles suffered from one of the things you note - an unwillingness to do the hard work of changing how we think about leadership and a whole lot of other stuff.
Now I think about it, wouldn’t it be fun to play the Beer Game with church leaders?
January 5th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Dave,
the guys I hang out with in Tucson, area215.blogharbor.com, are asking the same questions as you. Although I understand that emergent types are hestiant to land on something that labels them liberal or conservative. At some point, we need to move beyond the two predominant views I see right now: 1) the flirtatious emergent one…this is the person who flirts with theology and the conversation, but hurridly runs back to the saftey of the evangelical tent as soon as the “big guns” start wagging their fingers. Then there is the indecisive emergent one. This is the person who is a bit more bold in their distaste for evangelical theology, but won’t land the hell anywhere else because they don’t want any label. Or, because they want to create the perfect “new” label.
Well, I say both those options get you to the warmed over place you describe. Life’s too short too wait around for the perfect label. Emergent types need to do some landing and then be willing to change again and again and again.
the whole flaw in spiritual formation in the modern world was that it was built on the premise that everything you (oh new Christian) are about to learn is right. don’t ever stop believing these things or you’ll be in danger of somehting far worse than your average root canal.
Crap. I say, spiritual formation should begin by saying…OK, all this stuff we’re going to talk about…you better hold it loosely because five years from now you may not believe much of it. Welcome to the adventure. But, no instead we wittingly or unwittlingly make spiritual formation an exercise in group think. YIKES.
So, what we have in emergent types, for the most part, are people who grew up in the “you better now question any of this stuff or you’ll be in trouble.” So, though we might want to question, Pavlovian responses take over and we shrink back.
I for one say, heck in some ways I’m a liberal. I love Marcus Borg and think we need a more diverse conversation. But God spare us from the trailer. God spare us from the trailer.
January 6th, 2005 at 9:55 am
“Please God, spare us from the trailer!”
Sounds like a prayer from Twister ;)
And my oh my, I love your comments about moving on, knowing full well that further change is inevitable.
A lot of the resistance is rooted in personality types - most people don’t handle ambiguity well (especially not lifelong evangelicals), but at some point when you know there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark something has to change anyway.
It’s time people realized the answer is not in the back of the book (but there’s an interesting idea for a bible study book - what would the answers in the back look like?)